UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs P.MARBANINAG

APPELLANT was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent/ complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, United India Insurance Company Ltd.

VERY briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant was owner of a Tanker Truck, which while plying on road on 25.11.90 was found to be missing along with the staff of the truck. The matter was reported to the police as also to the appellant. Police filed a final report. It was only in Jan. 1995 that an offer was made by the appellant to settle the claim at Rs. 2,50,000, after carrying out investigation, which was not acceptable to the complainant. When the case was not getting settled, finally, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the Appellant/respondent Insurance Company to pay Rs. 2,90,000 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 19.1.95 along with cost of Rs. 5,000. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us. We heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and also perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that lot of time was spent by the appellant asking for several papers, especially the final report filed by the police, before the Court. Under the law they are obliged to appoint a Surveyor and get a loss of assessment made. It appears that in this case no such thing was done. What was done by the appellant was to appoint investigator. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant who had insured the truck for Rs. 2, 90,000 was lost and there cannot be any dispute that the respondent/complainant shall be entitled to the indemnification on the part of the appellant. Nothing has been shown to us as to on what ground Rs. 2, 50,000 was offered? There is also no dispute that the vehicle was insured with open eyes by the appellant for Rs. 2, 90,000. Since it was a case of total loss and since there is no loss assessed by the Surveyor, the State Commission, in our view, rightly granted the insured amount to be paid to the complainant. However, we find that rate of interest @ 18% p.a. cannot be sustained as this is on the higher side, which is reduced to 12% p.a. Only to this extent the appeal is allowed. Rest of the order passed by the State Commission is upheld.

IN compliance with this Commission''s order dated 22.2.2000, complainant has already been paid Rs. 1,00,000 and remaining Rs.1,90,000 has been already deposited by the appellant with the Registry of this Commission. The appellant is directed to re-work the total liability as per order passed by us and after catering for Rs. 1,00,000, already paid to the complainant, balance amount be paid to the complainant after withdrawing Rs. 1,90,000 from the Registry of this Commission along with accrued interest.

THE outstanding payment due to the respondent/complainant shall be made within 6 weeks of passing of this order. In case of failure, the respondent/complainant shall be entitled to proceed against the appellant under Section 25/Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal stands disposed off in above terms.